Thank you for sharing your opinion and input, I think everyone's point of view is valuable.
I do see some holes in that theory. I'm not an expert on the subject but I have a strong suspicion that since hair does not have blood flowing through it, it's not possible to tell if it was stuck to the hair either pre or postmortem.
The presence of the duct tape whether it was placed there pre or postmortem does not prove intent because COD can not be determined.
I have a difficult time imagining someone planning a murder and thinking, "ah duct tape, perfect". I can however think of a few scenarios where an act of stupidity using duct tape could contribute to someone's death. But we cannot prove that either.
I absolutely agree that if Casey's fingerprints are on the duct tape, we don't know that for sure yet but I have a feeling we soon will, that Casey was either responsible or present when the child's life was lost. Even without fingerprint evidence there is other strong evidence to suggest that to be true.
The thing I have a problem with is the statement they have iron clad evidence that it was intentional. Looking at things logically, which is the only way that I've looked at this case from the beginning, I lack the understanding for how they could have such evidence. Perhaps they do, I've been wrong before, but I'm certainly interested to learn what they have which they consider to be absolute proof.
ETA: I've been thinking about this some more, about what would be absolute evidence. The only thing I could come up with is eye witness. Hmmm